Summary
striking new claims impermissibly added without the court's permission where the new claims sought to inject entirely new issues which would require additional discovery and delay the resolution of the action
Summary of this case from Tommy Hilfiger Licensing, Inc. v. Bradlees, Inc.Opinion
99 Civ. 11299 (LAK)
October 12, 2000
ORDER
Defendants move to strike the second amended complaint, which was filed without leave of court, or for partial dismissal thereof on the ground that portions are not legally sufficient.
The second amended complaint was filed after the deadline set by the Court for amendments to the pleadings and, in any case, in flat defiance of Fed.R.Civ.P. 15, which allows only one amendment as of right. Moreover, while the second amended complaint merely fine tunes plaintiff's debatable fraud claims, it seeks to inject entirely new claims that seek to impose liability on the basis of piercing the corporate veil and tortious interference with contract, all because plaintiff mistakenly assumed at the outset that the defendants had merged into a single corporation rather than checking the appropriate corporate records, which would have revealed the inaccuracy of that assumption. The new claims, further, would require additional discovery and delay resolution of the action.
In all the circumstances, defendants' motion to strike the second amended complaint is granted. This ruling, however, does not predetermine any effort by plaintiff to introduce the newly elaborated fraud claims under the existing pleading, a matter that will be determined when, as and if necessary.
SO ORDERED.